Followers

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Why Booze Crackdown Is Really About Power, not Power Alcohol

John Mututho is at it again. The chairman of the National
Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse and author of the
Alcoholic Drinks Control Act (better known as the Mututho Laws) is pushing for
amendments to that would, in
his words, see the state “control the primary production process”. This, in
his view, would be the long term solution to dealing with the problem of
illicit liquor.

The desire to control alcohol production and consumption is
not new in Kenya. It has existed from pre-colonial times Most traditional
societies closely regulated it, with drinking being the exclusive preserve of male
elders. There were dire warnings about the consequences of youthful indulgence
which was perceived as a threat to the existing social organisation of power.

However, with colonialism, the regulations took on a
distinctly racist and classist character. Mututho himself acknowledged as much last year
in a presentation
last year at the 68th World Congress of the International Organisation of Good
Templars held in Thailand. In it he traces the problem of alcohol abuse in
Kenya to 1902. Serious alcoholism problems were experienced in present day Murang’a
County which led to the British appointing the (in)famous Wangu Wa Makeri to assist
in eradicating it. While in 1908 colonial settlers successfully resisted
passage and later, implementation, of laws meant to domesticate British restrictions
on their consumption and trade in booze, they had no trouble enacting the Chang’aa
(local spirit) Prohibition
Act to control alcohol production and consumption
among the natives. These regulations and attitudes were to be the basis of
alcohol control efforts in Kenya for over a century.

Colonialism seriously undermined the power of elders both
through the appointment of low level bureaucrats as chiefs and the introduction
of wage labour, which gave the youth independent means of procuring or
producing their own hooch. This very independence however worried the new
powers. In the essayDrunks, Brewers and Chiefs: Alcohol
Regulation in Colonial Kenya, 1900-1939 Prof Charles Ambler, Professor of
History at the University of Texas at El Paso, dates British efforts to control
native alcohol consumption to the earliest days of the colonial enterprise.
Enforcement of the 1890 Act of Brussels, which banned the export of spirits to
East Africa, while “consistently and forcefully keeping such liquor out of the
hands of Africans” did little to restrict consumption among white settlers.

The following decades saw enactment of laws criminalizing
drinking by Kenyans under 30, public drunkenness and restricting access to raw
materials, especially refined sugar, used in the manufacture of booze. This was
despite the paucity of evidence for an “epidemic of drunkenness” and probably having
more to do with colonial insecurities. “Drinking made Africans both
unpredictable and dangerous in the process eroding the veneer of obeisance that
made control possible … and permitted one or two British officials to rule vast
districts with apparent ease.” Significantly, as Ambler goes on to note,
periods of rigorous alcohol regulation coincided with heightened political and
social unrest.

Another motive for controlling alcohol use among the natives
was the colonial economy’s requirement for local labour and the perception that
Africans could not hold their liquor. "Greater attention was focused on
the role of drinking in discouraging young men from engaging in wage
labour." From early on, restrictions on African drinking hours sought to
impose an industrial regime on previously agricultural societies. In the article,
Alcohol Licensing hours: Time and
Temperance in Kenya, Justin Willis writes: “Regulation began with the
prohibition of all-night drinking, then moved to the imposition of more
detailed daily and calendric rhythms, driven by the perceived need to regulate
the leisure time of waged labour.”

At independence, these laws and attitudes were adopted, and
in some cases enhance, by the ruling African elite who kept for themselves the
privileges formerly reserved for the whites. Jomo Kenyatta, who once traded in
Nubian gin –a euphemism for Nubian chang’aa- in Dagoretti, had no qualms about
further restricting drinking hours though, as in the colonial era, enforcement
was and continues to be, sporadic.

However, combined with the enduring colonial distinction
between the approved settler booze and illegal native liquor continued, the
laws have produced not just divergent drinking cultures among the urban workers
–with the former consumed mainly by the middle-class in legitimate enterprises
after working hours and on weekends and the latter by the poor pretty much
throughout the day in illegal dens. Like the colonial settlers whose drinking
was not adjudged to interfere with public order and thus required little
regulation, the elite can drink to their hearts’ content at any time of the day
in private clubs without courting opprobrium.

In the 90s, as donors turned off the taps and the economy went
south, the government turned to excise taxes on beer in a bid to plug the hole
in its finances. Following the 1992 elections, taxation on bottled beer rose to
153 percent per unit. With per capita incomes shrinking throughout the decade,
this had the effect of driving legitimate booze out of reach of ever increasing
numbers of people, including in the middle-class.

Into this void stepped a new kind of alcoholic beverage.
According to Willis, in a 2003 article
titled New Generation Drinking: The
Uncertain Boundaries of Criminal Enterprise in Modern Kenya, what came to
be known as second generation drinks “disturbed an established boundary between
the formal and informal sectors, and between legitimate enterprise and criminal
endeavour”. Although packaged as
‘modern’ drinks, they were classed as ‘traditional’, and attracted excise tax
of just 10 percent. In terms of alcohol content, ‘power drinks’ were four to
five times cheaper than the fare from the market monopoly, EABL, and
successfully competed for the lower end of the market.

Despite periodic bans, the drinks have continued to be sold.
As evidenced by the current “crackdown”, government agencies continue to issue
confused and conflicting statements about the legality and safety of the
drinks. As noted above, many are licensed and produced on an industrial scale
in premises whose locations are well known.

Beginning 2004 the Kibaki government begun to reduce duty on
non-malted beer, eliminating it all together in 2006. The aim was to offer
people on the lower end of the market a clean and affordable alcoholic drink.
Prices for EABL’s sorghum beer, Senator keg, did indeed fall and compare
favourably with most “illicit” brews and, EABL claimed, capture half their
market. But this was no silver bullet. Among the poorer customers, the higher
alcohol content of illicit brews still made them more attractive. In the end,
the government was forced to legalize chang’aa in the Mututho Laws of 2010.
This gave the poor even more choice of legal and safe alcohol.

But, as Muriithi Mutiga noted,
in a typically self-defeating move following the 2013 elections, the Uhuru
administration restored the excise tax on sorghum beer, more than doubling it
price overnight. According to EABL, the price increase cut sales of Senator keg
by 80 percent as Its poorer customers trooped back to the shadowy worlds of
chang’aa and second generation drinks.

The current hoopla about boozing is merely a continuation of
a centuries-old experiment in social and political control couched in the
language of a patronizing concern. The echoes of the official terror of
drinking as an obstacle to control can also be heard if the oft-repeated
description of youthful protesters as drunk or drug-addled. In fact, as Willis further
explains in his piece
titled Protecting Young People: Alcohol,
Advertising and Youth in Kenya which explored the failed 2004 attempt to
ban alcohol advertising, much of the angst over alcohol rehashes the arguments
of traditional elders afraid of losing their authority over a newly liberated
youth at the dawn of colonialism. Far from reflecting the realities of alcohol
consumption, control efforts have instead been held hostage to inter-generational
struggles over the cultural and traditional foundations that privilege the
power of elders and the foreign influences said to undermine it. In other
words, as was feared by the colonials, inebriation prevents those in the lower
ranks from accepting their proper place in the pecking order.

Today, the de facto criminalization of drinking by the youth
and the poor is producing effects that are diametrically opposed to Mututho’s
declared aims. Alcohol control policies have mostly not been informed by
accurate assessments of the prevailing situation or informed predictions about
their effects on actual drinking habits. Ill-advised bans and taxes have driven
the approved booze out of reach of the poor while at the same time driving most
of the trade in cheap liquor underground and making it much more dangerous. If
Mututho is really interested in stopping killer brews, he should stop
dispensing the Kool-Aid and instead take a long hard look in the mirror.

This is an abridged version of an article appearing in the August issue
of The Platform magazine

6 comments:

If you want to know if you or a loved-one is indeed an alcoholic or drug addict - it's important that you know what the drug addiction signs and alcoholism symptoms are. Now I could give you a whole list of bulleted signs here, but I'm not going to do that (if you want that feel free to visit my website) - because rather than give you a whole bunch of symptoms, I want to give you what I believe is the most telling one.anger management classes online

In all drug and alcohol rehabilitations, health practitioners, licensed physicians and doctors work together to provide the best possible treatment program for every individual addict. This article will explain the benefits of choosing addiction treatment programs. [www.aacsatlanta.com] please visit,online anger management class